RPG Design: Random Number Generation

Last year, I discussed the contrasting merits of using Point Buy or Random Roll for a character creation system.  This week, I wanted to expand that discussion to talk about Random Number Generation (or RNG, for short) in tabletop RPGs design generally.

Praise RNGesus!

To me, how one feels about RNG in tabletop RPGs is a key dividing line between "Old School" and "New School" thought for RPG Design.  IMHO, the further a rules set travels from RNG, the more New School it becomes.  Specifically, I'm talking about game mechanics that alter/revoke the raw numbers, like Fate Points or similar in-game  metacurrency, which directly override RNG.  Poorly designed Fate Point economies can unbalance or otherwise disrupt a game, but that's a whole other discussion.

I'm also talking about addition roll mechanics as well, such as Pushing in 7e "Call of Cthulhu" (2014) or Advantage/Disadvantage in 5e "Dungeons & Dragons" (2014):

"Advantage reflects the positive circumstances surrounding a d20 roll, while disadvantage reflects the opposite. When you have either advantage or disadvantage, you roll a second d20 when you make the roll. Use the higher of the two rolls if you have advantage, and use the lower roll if you have disadvantage. For example, if you have disadvantage and roll a 17 and a 5, you use the 5. If you instead have advantage and roll those numbers, you use the 17."

And, of course, this includes games with NO randomizer, such as "Amber" (1991).

Thus, I'm talking about games that by design will revoke/alter/supplant the raw result of a randomizer, usually in favor of player driven narrative.  Consequently, the more important narrative is to an RPG's design, the more likely it falls under New School.

By contrast, in my mind, there are few things that scream "Old School" more than RNG, whether it's the pain from a terrible roll (or vice versa) or the shock (or glee) from an unexpected result.    Like   "New School" and narrative, RNG is, IMHO, a signature of "Old School" games.

The appeal of RNG isn't hard to understand.  Basically, it's a form of gambling and has that same neurological effect.  This effect is multiplied for critical successes/failures:

Big money!  Big money!

Not everyone is a fan of criticals, though.  Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons, vociferously opposed critical successes in The Dragon #16 (1978):

"The “critical hit” or “double damage” on a “to hit” die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D...the point must be made that whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly ruined, by the inclusion of “instant death” rules, be they aimed at monsters or characters...“instant death” no longer allows participants to use judgement when playing."

Of course, Gygax's shifting from “double damage” to “instant death” in the above quotation is an example of the classic logical fallacy of moving the goal posts.  The great majority disagreed with Gygax and it is unsurprising that many RPGs nowadays have some kind of mechanic for criticals.

Of course, what one hand giveth, the other can take away and the results of a bad die roll can be extremely harsh, up to and including instadeath.  A major reason that many people play RPGs is wish fulfillment.  Consequently, it can be painful to have something terrible happen to one's personal avatar.  The difference between "Old School" and "New School" is that the former typically more readily accepts setbacks and failures as a part of the game, up to and including instadeath.

Many New Schoolers, however, have a problem with this "Old School" approach, which probably reflects changing expectations.  Back in the days of yore, players were far less coddled.  If the Dice Gods produced a result that was unfortunate but otherwise fair, you were supposed to suck it up and keep on trucking.

Given the above, it's probably not surprising that Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, only uses either RNG or GM rulings.  Again, maintaining Old School D&D roots is a key design goal.

Culture: Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC)

Law is a cornerstone of civilization.  So, this week I wanted to give a shout out to one of the oldest and most influential law texts of all time, the Code of Hammurabi:

Officially consisting of 282 laws (although there is no 13th Law because, then as now, the number 13 was considered to be unlucky), the Code of Hammurabi is a monumental achievement.  Not only is the Code both one of the earliest forms of law and one of the earliest examples of lengthy writing, it stands for the notion that human behavior should be regulated with justice and fairness (for example, the Code contains one of the earliest examples of the presumption of innocence), although Babylonian notions of "justice" and "fairness" were different from modern views.

In addition, the Code supported the notion that the law is meant to be open and accessible: the Code was written in Akkadian, the daily language of Babylon, and was inscribed on a stele and placed out in public, so any literate person could read it.   Over half of the Code covers commercial transactions, and a third deals with family matters but the text is far ranging and it also is one of the earliest examples of a fundamental law (i.e., a constitution).  

Named after the great Babylonian king who extended Babylon's control throughout Mesopotamia, the Code of Hammurabi was enacted because Hammurabi had conquered many disparate peoples and wanted to have a uniform set of laws to help administer and unify his new empire.

One of the most famous (and misunderstood) laws in the Code is #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye."  However, the purpose of the law was to *RESTRICT* compensation to the value of the loss.  Thus, it is more accurately read as "only one eye for one eye."

My favorite law from the Code is #5:

If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.

Government accountability is always a good thing.

Written nearly four millennia ago, the Code of Hammurabi has long since passed into the public domain and several English-language translations can be found here.

RPG Design: Tactical Depth

The primary way in which RPGs differ from make believe (and other story games) is that the participant's creativity is harnessed and channeled via rules (aka the mechanics of a game).  This week, I wanted to talk about one of the most important (but sometimes overlooked or misunderstood) considerations for a tabletop RPG's mechanics: Tactical Depth.

Not a lot of Tactical Depth

By "Tactical Depth," I mean the relative number and types of meaningfully different options available to PCs that can change the state of the game, both in and out of combat.  More specifically, as elegantly stated by Brian Gleichman, there are three major elements of tactical game design:

• Resource Management

In order for a game to be "Tactical," at least some resources need to be limited, whether they are hit points, spells, or even time (this is the reason why tracking time is important for a certain style of Old School play).  For example, in D&D, the more time one spends searching a room, the greater the risk of encountering wandering monsters.

The need to manage resources creates tactical decisions, namely "Where do I spend my resources, and for what benefit?"

• Dissimilar Assets

A game becomes more "Tactical" when the players have more options available to solve in-game problems.  For example, a PC can open a door with either a lock pick, spell or brute force.

On the other hand, when there are less choices or all choices lead to the same outcome, a game has less tactical depth.  For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), all weapons did 1d6 damage, making OD&D less tactical than the later editions.

Furthermore, the element of Dissimilar Assets plays out at both the party and at the individual level.  Here, the composition of the party in games where PCs have better defined niches is more tactical because niche protection creates more distinct tools to solve problems.  By contrast, when PCs are more generic, such as 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons (where every PC has healing surges and spell-like powers), this element of tactical play becomes more shallow.

• Maneuver

As Messr Gleichman notes, Maneuver means "getting the right resources into the right position at the right time in order to maximize your chance of success while protecting against the same from your opponent."

A game becomes more "Tactical" as Maneuver increasingly affects mechanical resolution (e.g., movement, facing (front v. flank v. rear), range, terrain, environment, etc.).  By contrast, more abstract (and often lighter) games result in less tactical depth, particularly if they are mapless (i.e., theater of the mind).

So why exactly is Tactical Depth important for RPGs?  YMMV, but for most people having meaningfully different options that can change the state of the game goes to the heart of playing a "game" (and a fundamental part of the fun).

For example, Dungeon Squad 2 (2016) is a very fast, very light roleplaying game "designed for youngsters with powerful ambition but short attention spans."  However, this game is so light (it's markedly less tactical than even the original Dungeon Squad) that it can scarcely be called an RPG: it has almost nothing in the way of the three major elements of Tactical Depth (i.e., there's very little in the way of resource management, there's very little practical difference between Hero and Rascal, and there's no maneuver).  In actual play, the mechanics feel little different from flipping a coin.  Consequently, Dungeon Squad 2 is really more a story game than an RPG.

By contrast, GURPS (Generic Universal RolePlaying System) (1986) is highly tactical (especially if you play with the optional rules), with emphasis on all three major elements of Tactical Depth.  However, very tactically deep games are not for everyone, both from a flavor and from a mental investment perspective.  For example, Chess is intensely tactical but that required depth of tactical thought is a turn off for many board gamers.

In addition, RPGs may be deep in some of major elements of Tactical Depth but not others.  Some RPGs may even eliminate major elements of Tactical Depth.  For example, Barbarians of Lemuria (2008) has pretty much no element of Maneuver.  (I would argue, however, that if a game eliminates all three major elements of Tactical Depth, it is in fact a story game rather than an RPG).

Arguably the greatest real life example of Maneuver

For Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, as with its Core Mechanic, I've tried to retain approximately the same Tactical Depth as its Old School roots (noticeable Resource Management and Dissimilar Assets combined with mechanically significant Maneuver) to produce similar flavor whilst playing.  Again, I want to keep its DNA recognizable while fulfilling my other design goals.

Movie Review: Red Sonja (1985)

This week, I wanted to give a shout out to a fun, if flawed, Swords & Sorcery romp that I watched many times on VHS when I was younger, "Red Sonja":

In this film, our titular character (played by newcomer Brigitte Nielsen) out is out to stop evil Queen Gedren (played by Sandahl Bergman), before the latter uses a powerful artifact of dark sorcery to destroy the world by flood and earthquake.  Sonja and Gedren have history: Sonja rejected Gedren's advances, so the Queen had Sonja raped and most of her family murdered.

Years later, after a magical spirit gives Sonja great sword fighting skills by and she receives training from a sword master to hone those skills, she finds that Gedren has also murdered her sister, a priestess guarding the Talisman (the aforementioned artifact of dark sorcery), whilst stealing the Talisman.  So, the Red One sets out to seek bloody vengeance (and also to save the world).

Along the way, she forms a motley party of adventurers (including Arnold Schwarzenegger playing a Conan the Barbarian expy), carves up anyone who stands in her way, and learns that not all men are evil.

This film has many, many drawbacks: Richard Fleischer, who directed "Conan the Destroyer" (1984), also helms this flick and "Red Sonja" shares many of the same problems, such as the dull direction, the significant departure from the dark, brooding, serious style of adult fantasy of "Conan the Barbarian" (1982), the weak story and lack of tension, the uninspired soundtrack, the cheap laughs, etc.

There is also plenty of bad acting and dialogue, such as this classic line:

Gedren... Where are youuuu?

Sandahl Bergman, who was supposed to be Sonja but declined, does a decent job of chewing scenery as the villain but Arnold mostly sleepwalks through completing his contractual obligations.

Speaking of which, as the third in Arnold's barbarian trilogy, this film was meant to be another Conan film but the producers ran into problems when they lost the rights to that character.  So, instead, they decided to change the main character.  Based on the character Red Sonya of Rogatino, Robert E. Howard's short story "The Shadow of the Vulture" (1934), Red Sonja is a swashbucking warrior woman popularized by Marvel Comics and set in R. E. Howard's Hyborian Age (also home to Conan the Barbarian).

Anyway, IMHO, "Red Sonja" is still fun if you take it for what it is, a lean 80s Action flick with 65 on screen murders, including the decapitation of the hapless sorcerer and one dude getting crushed to death.  The action choreography is mostly decent to good and the costume and production design (except for the Killing Machine, which was laughable even in the '80s) are excellent.

Indeed, I actually rate "Red Sonja" above "Conan the Destroyer," which I found to be rather dull.    "Red Sonja" is faster paced and filled with more action.  Queen Gedren is batshit insane and is at least funnier than the evil queen in "Conan the Destroyer".  And the kid sidekick (Prince Tarn) is way less annoying than Malak the Thief, actually has a character arc and proves to eventually be brave and useful.

Also, there's nothing really silly in "Red Sonja" on par with Zula (played by Grace Jones) wearing a tail or Andre the Giant in a rubber monster costume.

So, if you have some spare time and you're a fan of Swords & Sorcery, you could definitely do worse than spend 90 minutes back in the days of yore, when women were women and men mostly met the business end of Red Sonja's blade!